LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak.

In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

A primer on US antitrust claims against patentees under Walker Process

Legal context: In the wake of two recent cases from the Federal Circuit onthe subject, this article provides an introduction to the WalkerProcess doctrine under US law. Under the doctrine, a patenteewho knowingly enforces a patent procured by intentional fraudon the patent office may lose its immunity to antitrust claims,should it act to enforce its patent. Key points: Walker Process fraud refers to a knowing and deliberate fraudperpetrated on the patent office as opposed to mere acts ofinequitable conduct. Proving that a patent applicant engagedin Walker Process fraud does not by itself prove liability foran antitrust violation. The accused infringer must still provethe individual elements of an antitrust claim. Antitrust claimsbased on Walker Process fraud require significant time and resourcesto litigate. Practical significance: With the allure of mandatory treble damages and attorney's fees,antitrust claims based on Walker Process fraud can serve asa potent counterclaim for an accused infringer's arsenal. Butthe legal requirements and resources needed to successfullylitigate these claims to a conclusion may temper their effectivenessfor the typical patent-infringement suit.     

House of Lords simplifies the law on patent entitlement

The House of Lords has held that, to claim entitlement to another'spatent or patent application, a person need only prove thathe was the inventor of the subject-matter of the patent, anddoes not also need to invoke ‘some other rule of law’as required previously by the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher[2005] RPC 31.     

Irish 'Lipitor' litigation: High Court favours broad claim construction

In its first significant judgment on claim construction in over25 years, Ireland's High Court approved the principles laiddown by the English House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen, holding thatWarner-Lambert's ‘Lipitor’ patent is not limitedto a racemic mixture and refusing Ranbaxy a declaration of non-infringement.     

论专利侵权赔偿损失的归责原则

专利授权公告不应具有使公众应知的法律效力。专利侵权赔偿适用一般过错推定说对行为人显失公平,专利侵权纠纷中也不存在特殊过错推定说的法定事由。因此,过错推定责任原则不能作为专利侵权赔偿损失的一般归责原则。专利侵权属于一种特殊侵权,在归责上不应适用过错责任原则。我国应基于无过错责任原则的宗旨、专利权的排他权性及专利侵权判定的复杂性,并借鉴国际公约和国外立法例,区分专利侵权产品首次销售前后的不同侵权行为,分别适用无过错责任原则或过错推定责任原则。     

论专利侵权判定中等同原则的完善

专利是推动社会进步、经济发展的重要制度保证.依法保护专利权、制裁侵犯专利权的行为,首要和关键的问题就在于对是否为专利侵权进行判定."等同原则"是专利侵权判定的一项重要原则.然而,该原则的合理适用被中外专利、司法界喻为"专利诉讼中最富挑战性的难题",对"等同"的认定产生偏差将导致该原则在适用中标准不统一,严重影响司法的社会效果和司法的统一性.即力图对等同原则这一在国内外专利侵权判定中长期争论的问题再作一思考,以期对等同原则的科学适用和进一步完善进行一些有益的探讨.     

知识产权变动登记效力模式探析——以专利权为例

专利权作为绝对权,在变动过程中关涉不特定多数人利益,因此其在变动中的公示方式及其效力模式的选择至关重要。通过分析,在我国现行法律体系下,专利权变动宜采登记证明主义和登记生效主义,但在应然层面上,或许采登记证明主义和登记对抗主义更为合适。专利权变动登记模式可以适用于整个知识产权。     

修理、更换、回收利用是否构成专利权侵害

对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用是否构成专利权侵害，必须以专利权利要求保护的范围作为最基本的判断标准；即使对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用构成再造，也并不必然侵害专利权；在处理对专利产品进行修理、零部件更换或者回收利用是否专利权侵害的问题时，关键是处理好以生产经营为目的提供零部件的行为是否构成专利权间接侵害。     

试论方法特征限定的产品权利要求的撰写形式与保护范围

方法特征限定的产品权利要求是指产品权利要求的技术方案部分或者全部由方法特征进行限定。对于这类权利要求,各国对于其可专利性存在不同的规定;对于方法特征对整个权利要求的保护范围所产生的影响也存在不同看法;在专利侵权诉讼中应当如何分配举证责任也存在不同的做法。通过研究目前国际上的各种相关规定,对于方法特征限定的产品权利要求进行理论和实践上的分析,尝试提出解决上述问题的方法。     

物权请求权与消灭时效

法学理论关于物权请求权的性质有物权说、债权说和独立请求权说。债权说的物权请求权的性质定位,不仅符合法律关系或权利类型的模式化法典建构需要,而且也为消灭时效制度的适用找到了法学依据,同时也为完善立法提供了方法上的指导。     

Protecting the Public Policy Rationale of Copyright: Reconsidering Copyright Misuse

Copyright misuse protects a defendant's use of copyrighted material when the plaintiff has claimed a right in his work beyond the scope of copyright law and when such a claim is contrary to public policy. Historically, as this article demonstrates, courts have been reluctant to find in favor of defendants who claim copyright misuse and have interpreted the doctrine narrowly on the basis of antitrust considerations. However, more recent decisions and a growing body of literature suggest a greater role for copyright misuse. This article argues for such an expanded role and proposes a new section of copyright law titled "Limitations on Infringement: Copyright Misuse."     

论临时保护请求权

专利法赋予了发明专利申请人一定限度的临时保护期请求权,但对该权利的规定归于模糊,其法律属性有待研究。实际上,临时保护期请求权不仅不是一个独立的权利,而且是一个极为孱弱的期待性权益,法律对其救济极为有限,不足以保护专利申请人的合法利益。赋予申请人完整的请求权利不会导致权利的滥用。法律有必要考虑做出适度的制度安排以确保专利申请人的利益,真正促进科技创新,实现知识产权法特别是专利法与民法制度的衔接。     

Three Conceptual Problems with the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise

This article dissects the Tadi court's argument for findingthe doctrine of joint criminal enterprise in the ICTY Statute.The key arguments are identified and each are found to be eitherproblematic or insufficient to deduce the doctrine from thestatute: the object and purpose of the statute to punish majorwar criminals, the inherently collective nature of war crimesand genocide and the conviction of war criminals for joint enterprisesin World War II cases. The author criticizes this over-relianceon international case law and the insufficient attention tothe language of criminal statutes when interpreting conspiracydoctrines. The result of these mistakes is a doctrine of jointcriminal enterprise that fails to offer a sufficiently nuancedtreatment of intentionality, foreseeability and culpability.Specifically, the doctrine in its current form suffers fromthree conceptual deficiencies: (1) the mistaken attributionof criminal liability for contributors who do not intend tofurther the criminal purpose of the enterprise, (2) the impositionof criminal liability for the foreseeable acts of one's co-conspiratorsand (3) the mistaken claim that all members of a joint enterpriseare equally culpable for the actions of its members. The authorconcludes by briefly suggesting amendments to the Rome Statuteto rectify these deficiencies.     

Domestic Violence and Asylum: Toward a Working Model of Affirmative State Obligations

While the 1951 Convention is no longer limited geographicallyand its definition of a refugee is not linked to any particularcrisis or place, the source of persecution and the role of thestate with respect thereto has proved problematic. Domesticviolence claims have suffered particularly because of theseshortcomings, as these cases have been uneasy fits within doctrine.Though the Convention definition ordinarily envisions the stateas persecutor, domestic violence follows a different course.Almost inevitably, its victims are persecuted by their husbands.As ‘non-state actors’, they have frequently andwrongly eluded the Convention norms, revealing a tragic protectiongap in the Convention. An asylum seeker must prove that shehas a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion,nationality, membership of a particular social group or politicalopinion. Despite the seriousness of the claim, if the reasonfor the threat does not lie in one of those five sources, aproper asylum claim has not been made. Worse, however, the sourceof the persecution, a non-state actor, often blocks Conventionprotection. This paper will analyze these stumbling blocks toasylum seekers. It will posit the notion that legitimate asylumseekers have been marginalized by their home countries, renderedvirtual non-citizens. Whether through complicity, neglect orsheer indifference or incompetence, these home countries are‘failed states’, failures in not having providedfull rights of citizenship throughout their populations. Inconjunction with that, it will examine the standards for determiningwhen the non-state actor is a persecutor within the Conventionsense. Finally, it will set out factors to be used to test thefailed state for litigation purposes.     

Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?

Three recent International Court of Justice decisions –Oil Platforms, Avena and Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory– highlight the uncertain status of the margin of appreciationdoctrine in the Court’s jurisprudence. The purpose ofthis article is to evaluate, in the light of contemporary practiceof other courts, the current status under international lawof the margin of appreciation doctrine, which encourages internationalcourts to exercise restraint and flexibility when reviewingthe decisions of national authorities, and to offer preliminaryguidelines for future application. The article also discussesa variety of policy arguments concerning the legitimacy andeffectiveness of international courts, which can be raised insupport of the development of a general margin of appreciationdoctrine with relation to some categories of international lawnorms governing state conduct, and it examines potential criticism.Eventually, it argues that the same considerations which haveled to the creation of ‘margin of appreciation type’doctrines in the domestic law of many states and in the contextof specific international regimes (for instance, the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights) also support the introduction ofthe doctrine into general international law. The position ofthe ICJ towards the application of the doctrine therefore meritsreconsideration.     

Contributory Negligence in the Twenty‐First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions

In this article we report the results of an empirical study of 368 first instance decisions on the contributory negligence doctrine handed down in England and Wales between 2000 and 2014. The two central questions at which we looked were: how often a defendant's plea of contributory negligence was successful; and by how much a claimant's damages were reduced when a finding of contributory negligence was made. We also considered the extent to which the answers to these questions depended on the following variables: the claimant's age; the claimant's gender; the type of damage suffered by the claimant; the contextual setting of the claim; and the year of the decision. Our study uncovered several important truths about the contributory negligence doctrine hidden in this mass of case law, some of which cast significant doubt on the accuracy of widely held views about the doctrine's operation.     

Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law

This Article explores the U.S. "patent first, ask questions later" approach to determining what subject matter should receive patent protection. Under this approach, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or the Agency) issues patents on "anything under the sun made by man," and to the extent a patent's subject matter is sufficiently controversial, Congress acts retrospectively in assessing whether patents should issue on such interventions. This practice has important ramifications for morally controversial biotechnology patents specifically, and for American society generally. For many years a judicially created "moral utility" doctrine served as a type of gatekeeper of patent subject matter eligibility. The doctrine allowed both the USTPO and courts to deny patents on morally controversial subject matter under the fiction that such inventions were not "useful." The gate, however, is currently untended. A combination of the demise of the moral utility doctrine, along with expansive judicial interpretations of the scope of patent-eligible subject matter, has resulted in virtually no basis on which the USTPO or courts can deny patent protection to morally controversial, but otherwise patentable, subject matter. This is so despite position statements by the Agency to the contrary. Biotechnology is an area in which many morally controversial inventions are generated. Congress has been in react-mode following the issuance of a stream of morally controversial biotech patents, including patents on transgenic animals, surgical methods, and methods of cloning humans. With no statutory limits on patent eligibility, and with myriad concerns complicating congressional action following a patent's issuance, it is not Congress, the representative of the people, determining patent eligibility. Instead, it is patent applicants, scientific inventors, who are deciding matters of high public policy through the contents of the applications they file with the USTPO. This Article explores how the United States has come to be in this position, exposes latent problems with the "patent first" approach, and considers the benefits and disadvantages of the "ask questions first, patents later" approaches employed by some other countries. The Article concludes that granting patents on morally controversial biotech subject matter and then asking whether such inventions should be patentable is bad policy for the United States and its patent system, and posits workable, proactive ways for Congress to successfully guard the patent-eligibility gate.     

专利侵权损害赔偿的要件及其举证责任——以《侵权责任法》为切入点

专利侵权领域的证明责任分配已成为学界和实务的焦点和难点之一,专利侵权损害赔偿诉讼举证责任的整体研究并不多见。要产生专利侵权损害赔偿请求权,至少须满足侵权人的过错、侵害专利权的事实、损害事实、因果关系四个要件。在举证责任分配上,原告应当对创设请求权基础的法律规范的事实要件承担证明责任,而被告对权利妨碍、权利消灭和权利受制规范的事实要件承担证明责任。专利侵权损害赔偿请求权各构成要件事实的证明,应根据专利权及专利侵权的特点,依据《专利法》等实体法的规定具体确定。